Democrats, Republicans Swap Stances

Pollsters, Analysts Scratch Heads As Political Parties Reverse Roles

WASHINGTON — There may not be only a new world order for presidential candidates to worry about this year -- there may be a new political order as well.

Look at these latest quotes from the candidates on how to handle the crisis in the Balkans:

"We have to maintain the possibility of the use of force in order to show we are serious." That was Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee, talking about how to deal with the situation in war-ravaged Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Now listen to the attitude of President Bush: "Before one soldier or whatever it is, Marine, is committed to battle, I'm going to know how that person gets out of there. And we are not going to get bogged down in some guerrilla warfare."

When it comes to foreign policy, someone switched the nameplates here. Democrats, usually viewed as cautious and as urging diplomatic solutions, are acting like Republicans. Republicans, many of whom think a show of force is the best diplomacy, are acting like Democrats.

Bush, the World War II hero, is touted by his supporters as the strong commander in chief who led the country to victory in the Persian Gulf war.

Clinton is the one who questioned the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and avoided the military draft. And he leads a party whose members of Congress overwhelmingly opposed the gulf war last year, a party that has been struggling for 25 years over whether military force is a useful option in foreign conflicts.

"It's weird," said Robert Billings, director of the American Conservative Union, of the sudden role reversal.

From the other side of the political world, Amy Isaacs, national director of Americans for Democratic Action, a group that pushes liberal ideas, was just as baffled.

"I feel like everything is out of sync," she said.

The crisis in the Balkans signals what could be a new direction for political foreign policy debate, a direction that allows both parties to reshape images cemented in the public consciousness

since the Vietnam days of a generation ago.

Clinton called two weeks ago for U.S. bombing raids on Serbian positions in certain instances. Bush's position is not much different, but he has urged more cautious consideration of options.

"Unfortunately, this is an event that's given Bill Clinton and the new Democratic [congressional] leadership a chance to show we understand there are times in world events you need to use force," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., who is pushing the Senate to pass a resolution urging force as a viable option in the Balkans.

Analysts say Democrats have the bigger task because Republicans have pounded them for 24 years as the party that was weak on foreign policy, since Democrats became closely identified as the party that led the opposition to the Vietnam War.

That GOP chorus heightened during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the Democrat who pledged a more human rights-oriented approach to foreign policy.

Republicans contended that Carter's attitude gave the United States a weak image abroad, an image that gave Iranian militants enough confidence to seize American hostages in 1979 and the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan later that year.

Ronald Reagan battered Carter in 1980 over these embarrassments, and one of the cornerstones of Reagan's campaign was a promise to beef up the military.

He talked about how "we can get into a war by letting events get out of hand," as Carter had done, or how the country needed a "refurbishing of our defensive posture."

While Republicans were squarely on the side of more military might and use of force if necessary, Democrats tended to be split among three foreign policy camps, said Michael Shuman, fellow at Washington's Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal research group.

One group wanted diplomacy, not the use of force, as America's key foreign policy weapon. Another saw the need to forge more relationships with other countries so that they could collectively respond, perhaps with force, if necessary.

And a third group, the closest to the Republicans, thought the unilateral force should be a viable option.

It is these latter two groups that Clinton has embraced, largely for two reasons, according to analysts.

One is that for the first time since Carter was nominated in 1976 -- some would date it to 1968, when the party was divided over the Vietnam War -- moderates are clearly in control of the party agenda this year.

"A lot of us have fought for years inside the party to get these more moderate positions accepted," said Peter G. Kelly, a Hartford lawyer and senior adviser to Clinton.

The other motivation is that talking tougher helps Democrats overcome that longstanding image as military weaklings, an image many felt was reinforced during the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

"Clinton and his people are determined that Democrats will never again be seen as soft on defense," said Ted Galen Carpenter, director of foreign policy studies at Washington's Cato Institute, a conservative research firm.